“During the Inspection, a representative for the Respondents stated that they had not placed a batch code on the containers of Hammer Head PGR (EPA Reg. No. 92522-2) produced and distributed prior to the date of the Inspection. A batch code system was developed immediately after the Inspection.”

💡 This admission proves the company knowingly distributed products without required safety labels for months or years and only corrected the violation when caught by inspectors.

“During calendar year 2020, Respondent Agroscience failed to maintain any production records for Hammer Head PGR (EPA Reg. No. 92522-2).”

💡 The company kept zero records for an entire year of pesticide production, making it impossible to track contamination, investigate health complaints, or verify product safety.

“During the Inspection, the inspector observed that nonrefillable containers of Hammer Head PGR (EPA Reg. No. 92522-2) released for shipment did not include a batch or lot code on the label or elsewhere on the container.”

💡 Inspector confirmed that products shipped to farmers and distributors completely lacked the traceability information required by federal law to protect public health.

“As of the date of this CAFO, Respondent Agroscience has failed to submit its annual Pesticide Production Reports for calendar years 2018 and 2020 for its establishment to EPA.”

💡 The company skipped mandatory annual reports for multiple years, hiding production data from regulators and the public and demonstrating systematic evasion rather than isolated error.

“The production records for Hammer Head PGR (EPA Reg. No. 92522-2) that were provided on December 3, 2021, did not include the EPA Registration Number as required by 40 C.F.R. § 169.2(a).”

💡 Even after inspection forced the company to create records, those records remained incomplete, showing a persistent pattern of minimal compliance.

“Section 2(q)(1)(E) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(E), defines a pesticide as ‘misbranded’ if any word, statement, or other information required by or under authority of FIFRA, Subchapter II, to appear on the label or labeling is not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness and in such terms as to render it likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions of purchase and use.”

💡 This legal standard exists to protect consumers and workers from hidden hazards. The company’s products failed to meet this basic safety requirement designed for ordinary people.

“40 C.F.R § 156.140(a)(4) states, in pertinent part, that pesticides packaged in nonrefillable containers are required to include on the label or container a lot number, or other code used by the registrant or producer to identify the batch of the pesticide product which is distributed and sold.”

💡 Batch codes enable rapid product recalls and contamination tracing, protecting public health. The company eliminated this critical safety mechanism to save money.

“40 C.F.R. § 169.2(a) states, in relevant part, that all producers of pesticides shall maintain records showing the product name, EPA Registration Number, amounts per batch and batch identification of all pesticides produced, retained for a period of two years.”

💡 These records are the documentary foundation for product safety, worker protection, and environmental monitoring. The company abandoned this foundation entirely.

“Respondent PEC sold or distributed the pesticide product Hammer Head PGR (EPA Reg. No. 92522-2), in nonrefillable containers without a batch code from the Facility on or about the dates identified below, with the corresponding invoice numbers: [16 separate dates from January 6, 2020 through July 19, 2021]”

💡 The detailed invoice record proves this was not a one-time mistake but a sustained business practice spanning 18 months and affecting countless customers.

“The Administrator of EPA may assess a civil penalty against any registrant, commercial applicator, wholesaler, dealer, retailer, other distributor who violates any provision of FIFRA of up to $23,494 for each offense that occurred after November 2, 2015, and assessed on or after January 6, 2023, pursuant to Section 14(a)(1) of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136l(a)(1), and 40 C.F.R. Part 19.”

💡 With a maximum of $23,494 per violation and 20 violations alleged, potential penalties could have reached $469,880. The actual $27,064 fine is less than 6% of that amount.

“Respondents admit the jurisdictional allegations in this CAFO and neither admit nor deny the factual allegations in this CAFO.”

💡 This standard settlement language allows the companies to pay a fine without admitting they broke the law, protecting them from future liability and public accountability.

“Respondents certify that they are complying with FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §§ 136-136y, and the regulations promulgated thereunder.”

💡 The settlement relies on the companies’ own certification of compliance with no third-party audits or enhanced monitoring, the same companies that ignored the law for years.

“This civil penalty is not deductible for federal tax purposes.”

💡 While this provision prevents the company from treating the fine as a routine business expense, the penalty remains so small that tax deductibility is largely irrelevant.

“This CAFO does not affect the rights of EPA or the United States to pursue appropriate injunctive or other equitable relief or criminal sanctions for any violations of law.”

💡 The EPA explicitly preserved its ability to take stronger action in the future, suggesting the agency recognizes this settlement may be insufficient but lacked resources for full enforcement.

“This Consent Agreement and Final Order, as agreed to by the parties, shall become effective immediately upon filing with the Regional Hearing Clerk.”

💡 After 18 months of misbranding and years of missing reports, the settlement takes effect instantly with no transition period for enhanced oversight or verification of reforms.